When you were a kid, did you touch your girlfriend's breasts? Did you give your boyfriend a hand job? Did you dry hump on the beach? Did you French kiss? Did you grope each other in a parked car? If you did, that's sexual molestation of a child. And it's not too late; the statute of limitations on these kinds of things is very long now. Why don't you go turn yourself in?

Is this method of keeping kids from having sex effective or is it just evil?

If you were the parent of a child who engaged in consensual sex, would you really want your boy or girl to go to jail for it? What a about a brother, sister, cousin, nephew, niece, granddaughter, grandson?

If you would, that would be really perverse, IMHO.

There used to be a joke told, maybe it still is.

"If a boy scout can rub two sticks together to make a fire, what happens if you rub two boy scouts together?"

There was no punch line as such. Most people understood the silent answer to that question. You get a different kind of fire.

That was then. These days you get a criminal investigation. And if the two boys are about the same age and size and the responsibility can't be assigned to one of them, then both must be criminally charged.

The Supreme Court has ruled that child pornography is a crime because a child is harmed by the production of the image. In these cases the child is both victim and criminal. Of course, anyone (often a friend of the victim/criminal) who knowingly receives the image, keeps it, and/or forwards it to someone else is also guilty.

ok - so we have all the info & links you posted - just wondering what your point is. Are you for putting the younger kids in jail or detention? If the individual is older is it worse or ok? I guess I don't know what point you want to get across.

Back in June 2007 you had a similar post with a subject of 'Evil in US' and some text saying 'Making criminals out of children for consensual sexual activity is evil' with a huge page full of links.

Now your current poll, posting and subject 'How else are we going to protect the children?' again with lots of links.

The central theme in both I think is...underage sex and the law.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but there's something in both posts that creeps me a little bit. I haven't seen the new Batman movie yet but the feeling I get when I see the picture of the new Joker is a little like I feel when I see your posts with all those links and the theme....makes me uncomfortable....not so much the subject but the person presenting it and how it's done.

So, without anymore links and short comments...what's going on? Where are you coming from? How do you feel about all of this?

This sounds like some of the insane and sick propaganda of the NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) organization. They flood forums and chat rooms with these types of posts in a lame attempt to sway public opinion and legitimize their 'right' to have relations with underage children. Often it is posed in this righteous 'Kids being treated unfairly by unjust laws' as is the case of the original post. While it is certainly within their constitutional rights to free speech; I vehemently oppose their message and everything they stand for.

Frankly, I can't believe I wasted the energy to post on here about these freakish societal rejects.

Protecting the children indeed...

*** The opinions expressed herein are uniquely MY OWN and should not be construed as an endorsement of any sort by my employers or of any professional associations to which I hold membership. I can dig myself into holes just fine without their help, thank you very much***

I mostly use my computor for business and E-Bay. I don't mess with you-tube and all the rest of that dribble. I do like the Leader web page because it is local news and theories. As a result, these posts, instigated by hutchison are as close as I've been to this creepiness. I don't even understand what is going on with these posts, but I do know something is very very creepy here.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

I agree with most of the people who have responded in that the topic is a little creepy. However, it is relevant in terms of some of the hot political issues that have come up. Without affiliating myself with either political party, I have to criticize Sarah Palin's views on sex, specifically the teen-age kind. I noticed that every response to the original poll indicated that of three people, three had never engaged in any sort of heavy petting. I find it hard to believe, as most teenagers need to be fitted with a shock collar to prevent such things. With that said, Palin favors the "Abstinence Only" form of sex education. In my opinion, many (but not all) teenagers tend to experiment, and they need to be informed of the consequences in greater detail than what is being taught. I don't mean that they should be informed on the variety of activities. There's a whole section at Barnes and Noble that can deal with that at a later time. My freshman year of college, there was an optional slide show that promised us the secrets of sex. It was about twenty minutes of pictures that dealt with the aftermath of unprotected sex -- in full color, no less. The young adults in that room got to see a twelve foot image that showed us what Chlamydia looked like, the splendor that is Genital Herpes, a cluster of genital warts, syphyllis, and after the gross out, we were brought to tears by before and after pictures of those who suffered and lost to HIV/AIDS. The people who volunteered their pictures did so to inform others of mistakes they made, and how one mistake can spread to someone you love (or lust after). There were professionals from family planning clinics who spoke about hormones, how they affect the mind, and how they are affected by birth control. Most importantly, they addressed the fact that birth control pills are meant to be taken on a strict schedule to be effective, and how they don't protect anyone from diseases. Those are the things that they need to be teaching in sex ed. Abstinence only education leads to ill-informed children that might actually believe that they're invincible their first time.

I believe that laws that prohibit sexual activity among minors should stay intact. If anything, they should probably be more strict. As far as laws regarding an adult and a minor - there should be more of them. I think pedophiles and sex offenders should be branded - i'm talking iron-in-the-fire cattle style branding - so they can be identified as such.

I know I've gotten off of the original topic, but what are your thoughts and feelings on the issue? I'm opinionated, but I welcome any argument from the pro-abstinence camp. I'd like to believe that children and teens can be trusted to do the right thing, but then again, I was one not too long ago, and I screwed up.